 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Heveder6/28/2005
nd that Colonial therefore should not have paid the claim. But that is not the language of the statute. If the General Assembly had wished to impose a "knew or should have known" standard upon the insurer, they could have done so. Such a standard has been included in other sections of the insurance code. See, e.g., OCGA § 33-2-24 (g) (enhanced penalty for violation of title if insurer or others knew or should have known of violation); OCGA § 33-13-13 (b) (receiver may not recover dividend unless insurer knew or should have known that distribution might impair its obligations); OCGA § 33-37-21 (a) (4) (notice of liquidation required to all persons known or reasonably expected to have claims against insurer.) Alternatively, the General Assembly could have specified that some form of communication other than "written notice by or on behalf of some other person that the other person claims to be entitled to the payment or some interest in the policy" was adequate to fulfill the requirements of the statute. But any changes in the scope and application of the statute are for the General Assembly to consider, not this court.
As Colonial points out, this does not foreclose any remedies Heveder may have against Mrs. Heveder or others. By its plain meaning, however, the statute discharges Colonial from any claim under the policy, and the trial court erred in denying Colonial's motion for summary judgment.
Judgment reversed. Ellington and Adams, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|